AFS and BFS removed. Unacceptable license.

AFS and BFS removed. Unacceptable license.

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]

An unfortunate discovery has been done: our AFS code is based on
fsys_afs.c and afs.h from Syllable GRUB Legacy. The files in question
are not under FSF copyright, not licence-compatible and it wasn't
announced what's the code based on when the patch was sent or committed.
While first one is a minor issue I could grant exception for, the 2
other ones are fatal. I remind to all of you that a license-incompatible
can put the whole project in jeopardy and the need of both announcing
where code came from (refer to your copyright assignment if you have
one) and proper acknowledgement and traceability. The later is very
important if the code can come from several possible sources. In this
case if the code has been based on Haiku's BFS it would have been fine,
unfortunately it wasn't, without proper traceability it's hard to
differentiate between such cases.

-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 294 bytes --]

Re: AFS and BFS removed. Unacceptable license.

[Dee Sharpe]

Ok, so I'd assume that the AFS driver needs to be rewritten. Is it absolutely mandatory that copyright be assigned to the FSF?

A. Demetrious Sharpe

It's not a question of why I'm better than you,
it's a question of why you're not as good as me.
The fact that you fail to see the difference between the two, answers both questions!

Sent from my iPhone4

On Oct 29, 2011, at 4:37 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko<phcoder@gmail.com> wrote:

> An unfortunate discovery has been done: our AFS code is based on
> fsys_afs.c and afs.h from Syllable GRUB Legacy. The files in question
> are not under FSF copyright, not licence-compatible and it wasn't
> announced what's the code based on when the patch was sent or committed.
> While first one is a minor issue I could grant exception for, the 2
> other ones are fatal. I remind to all of you that a license-incompatible
> can put the whole project in jeopardy and the need of both announcing
> where code came from (refer to your copyright assignment if you have
> one) and proper acknowledgement and traceability. The later is very
> important if the code can come from several possible sources. In this
> case if the code has been based on Haiku's BFS it would have been fine,
> unfortunately it wasn't, without proper traceability it's hard to
> differentiate between such cases.
> 
> -- 
> Regards
> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel

Re: AFS and BFS removed. Unacceptable license.

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2395 bytes --]

On 29.10.2011 17:22, Dee Sharpe wrote:
> Ok, so I'd assume that the AFS driver needs to be rewritten. Is it absolutely mandatory that copyright be assigned to the FSF?
>
They need to be rewritten. Assignment can be discussed. I've already
done a part of BFS (using "practical file system design" book as a
reference) and since AFS is similar it can use same file with some
defines. So it should
Actually if you want to help what I need the most is the way of mkfs and
write to AFS (or as a variant something which already generates AFS with
files on it like xorriso can do for iso9660) for automated testing purposes.
It has to run on my testing system (Debian GNU/Linux)
> A. Demetrious Sharpe
>
> It's not a question of why I'm better than you,
> it's a question of why you're not as good as me.
> The fact that you fail to see the difference between the two, answers both questions!
>
> Sent from my iPhone4
>
> On Oct 29, 2011, at 4:37 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko<phcoder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An unfortunate discovery has been done: our AFS code is based on
>> fsys_afs.c and afs.h from Syllable GRUB Legacy. The files in question
>> are not under FSF copyright, not licence-compatible and it wasn't
>> announced what's the code based on when the patch was sent or committed.
>> While first one is a minor issue I could grant exception for, the 2
>> other ones are fatal. I remind to all of you that a license-incompatible
>> can put the whole project in jeopardy and the need of both announcing
>> where code came from (refer to your copyright assignment if you have
>> one) and proper acknowledgement and traceability. The later is very
>> important if the code can come from several possible sources. In this
>> case if the code has been based on Haiku's BFS it would have been fine,
>> unfortunately it wasn't, without proper traceability it's hard to
>> differentiate between such cases.
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards
>> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Grub-devel mailing list
>> Grub-devel@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 294 bytes --]

Re: AFS and BFS removed. Unacceptable license.

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1906 bytes --]

On 29.10.2011 17:22, Dee Sharpe wrote:
> Ok, so I'd assume that the AFS driver needs to be rewritten. Is it absolutely mandatory that copyright be assigned to the FSF?
>
I rewrote both BFS and AFS (which is a minor modification to the
former). Can you give me the tools (mkfs + a way to write to AFS)
necessarily to automatically test it for regressions in future?
> Sent from my iPhone4
Please avoid posting such advertisements here.
> On Oct 29, 2011, at 4:37 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko<phcoder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An unfortunate discovery has been done: our AFS code is based on
>> fsys_afs.c and afs.h from Syllable GRUB Legacy. The files in question
>> are not under FSF copyright, not licence-compatible and it wasn't
>> announced what's the code based on when the patch was sent or committed.
>> While first one is a minor issue I could grant exception for, the 2
>> other ones are fatal. I remind to all of you that a license-incompatible
>> can put the whole project in jeopardy and the need of both announcing
>> where code came from (refer to your copyright assignment if you have
>> one) and proper acknowledgement and traceability. The later is very
>> important if the code can come from several possible sources. In this
>> case if the code has been based on Haiku's BFS it would have been fine,
>> unfortunately it wasn't, without proper traceability it's hard to
>> differentiate between such cases.
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards
>> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Grub-devel mailing list
>> Grub-devel@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 294 bytes --]

Re: AFS and BFS removed. Unacceptable license.

[Dee Sharpe]

On 10/29/2011 10:37 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On 29.10.2011 17:22, Dee Sharpe wrote:
>> Ok, so I'd assume that the AFS driver needs to be rewritten. Is it absolutely mandatory that copyright be assigned to the FSF?
>>
> They need to be rewritten. Assignment can be discussed. I've already
> done a part of BFS (using "practical file system design" book as a
> reference) and since AFS is similar it can use same file with some
> defines. So it should
> Actually if you want to help what I need the most is the way of mkfs and
> write to AFS (or as a variant something which already generates AFS with
> files on it like xorriso can do for iso9660) for automated testing purposes.
> It has to run on my testing system (Debian GNU/Linux)
Ok, I will see what I can find. I'm sure that this stuff is in the repo, 
it's just a matter of me finding where it's located.


-- 

Dee Sharpe

The difference between what IS done
&  what COULD be done is relational to
what you ARE doing&  what you COULD be doing!